U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Advisory Circular Subject: Currency Requirements and Guidance for the Flight Review and Instrument Proficiency Check Date: 11/20/15 Initiated by: AFS-800 AC No: 61-98C Change:
This advisory circular (AC) provides information for certificated pilots and flight instructors to use in complying with the flight review required by Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 61, § 61.56 and the recent flight experience requirements of § 61.57. This AC is directed to General Aviation (GA) pilots and to certificated flight instructors (CFI). This AC does not apply to training programs or proficiency checks conducted pursuant to 14 CFR part 121 or 135, nor to curriculums approved pursuant to 14 CFR part 142.
ORIGINAL SIGNED by /s/ John S. Duncan Director, Flight Standards Service
CONTENTS Paragraph Page
CHAPTER 1. GENERAL1
1-1. Purpose1
1-2. Cancellation1
1-3. Related CFR Sections1
1-4. Related Reading Materials1
1-5. Background1
1-6. English Proficiency2
1-7. Personal Currency Program3
1-8. Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application4
CHAPTER 2. REDUCING GENERAL AVIATION ACCIDENTS5
2-1. General Aviation (GA) Accidents5
2-2. Manual Flight After Automation Failure7
2-3. CFI Responsibility and Safety Culture8
CHAPTER 3. RECENT FLIGHT EXPERIENCE11
3-1. Recent General Experience11
3-2. Recent Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) Experience12
CHAPTER 4. FLIGHT REVIEW13
4-1. Intent and Structure of the Flight Review13
4-2. Pre-Review Considerations14
4-3. Planning and Recording the Review15
4-4. Post-Review Considerations18
CHAPTER 5. INSTRUMENT PROFICIENCY CHECK19
5-1. Structuring an Instrument Proficiency Check (IPC)19
5-2. IPC Knowledge Portion20
5-3. IPC Skill Portion21
5-4. Post-IPC Considerations and Recordkeeping21
APPENDIX 1. RESOURCES (2 pages)1
APPENDIX 2. SAMPLE AIRPLANE PILOT’S PROFICIENCY PRACTICE PLAN
(2 pages)1
APPENDIX 3. SAMPLE PILOT’S PERSONAL AERONAUTICAL GOALS (2 pages)1
APPENDIX 4. SAMPLE CERTIFICATED FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR’S FLIGHT
REVIEW CHECKLIST (2 pages)1
APPENDIX 5. REGULATORY REVIEW GUIDE (2 pages)1
APPENDIX 6. SAMPLE FLIGHT REVIEW CHECKLIST (2 pages)1
APPENDIX 7. SAMPLE PILOT’S INSTRUMENT EXPERIENCE SUMMARY
(2 pages)1
APPENDIX 8. SAMPLE INSTRUMENT TRAINING AND PROFICIENCY PLAN
(2 pages)1
APPENDIX 9. SAMPLE CERTIFICATED FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR'S INSTRUMENT
PROFICIENCY CHECK CHECKLIST (2 pages)1
Par 1-1 Page 1 CHAPTER 1. GENERAL
1-1. PURPOSE. This advisory circular (AC) provides information for certificated pilots who wish to maintain currency and flight instructors for flight reviews required by Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 61, § 61.56 and the recent flight experience requirements of § 61.57.
1-2. CANCELLATION. This AC cancels AC 61-98B, Currency Requirements and Guidance for the Flight Review and Instrument Proficiency Check, dated April 30, 2012.
1-3. RELATED CFR SECTIONS:
• Section 61.189, Flight instructor records.
• Section 61.193, Flight instructor privileges.
• Section 61.195, Flight instructor limitations and qualifications.
• Section 61.413, What are the privileges of my flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating?
• Section 61.415, What are the limits of a flight instructor certificate with a sport pilot rating?
1-4. RELATED READING MATERIALS. Flight instructors, and airmen under review, should reference practical test standards (PTS), or equivalent, document(s) appropriate to the certificates and ratings held by the pilot seeking a flight review or instrument proficiency check (IPC) prior to the review. You can find additional information in the current editions of:
• Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM), Official Guide to Basic Flight Information and ATC Procedures;
• FAA-H-8083-3, Airplane Flying Handbook;
• FAA-H-8083-15, Instrument Flying Handbook;
• Information for Operators (InFO), InFO 15012, Logging Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP), September 8, 2015;
• AC 61-65, Certification: Pilots and Flight and Ground Instructors;
• AC 61-89, Pilot Certificates: Aircraft Type Ratings, (guidance on advanced training criteria, pilot certificates, aircraft type ratings, may also be appropriate if the aircraft being used requires a type rating);
• AC 91-73, Parts 91 and 135 Single Pilot, Flight School Procedures During Taxi Operations; and
• The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), commercial sources, and industry associations such as the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), the Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA), the General Aviation Manufacturer’s Association (GAMA), and the Society of Aviation and Flight Educators (SAFE) make many additional sources of media on pilot currency and qualification available.
1-5. BACKGROUND.
a. Regulatory Review. In 1997, the FAA initiated a major regulatory review and update of 14 CFR parts 61 and 141 to ensure that these regulations conformed to the then current
Par 1-5 Page 2 technological and operational environment and to address future pilot certification needs. This version of AC 61-98 addresses changes in technology and the operational environment, and their impact on recurrent training and proficiency checks. Edits to this AC, since the original version, have expanded the scope to include recent flight experience and instrument proficiency checks.
NOTE: The FAA no longer uses the term Biennial Flight Review. This term implied that pilots only needed currency training once every 24 calendar-months. The FAA encourages currency training as often as appropriate to a pilot’s individual needs. Consequently, the FAA now uses the term Flight Review.
b. GA Pilots. The FAA supports initiatives designed to encourage voluntary compliance with existing regulations and to maintain and further improve the GA safety record with a minimum of new regulations. As a result, the FAA has determined that updated advisory guidance is necessary with respect to the currency, proficiency, and qualification needs of GA pilots. The guidance contained in this version of AC 61-98 provides such information and accomplishes the goals of the personal currency program, flight review, and IPC.
c. Reducing GA Accidents. The FAA added important GAJSC (see chapter 2.1) findings and recommendations to AC 61-98 pertaining to GA accidents.
(1) GA pilots should become aware of this information and apply it to their personal currency program action plans.
(2) CFIs should apply this information to their training and evaluation action plans.
1-6. ENGLISH PROFICIENCY.
a. English Language Proficiency Requirements. English language proficiency (ELP) directly affects safety of flight. Regulations require pilots to meet and maintain ELP standards for all grades of pilot certificates issued under part 61. When a CFI conducts a flight evaluation and/or flight training, the CFI should identify any pilot that is not ELP and take appropriate action. The current edition of AC 60-28, English Language Skill Standards Required by 14 CFR Parts 61, 63, and 65, provides information and guidance regarding English language standards required by part 61.
b. CFI Evaluation. The IPC and the flight review are both evaluations of a pilot’s ability to conduct safe flight. Safety-related issues concerning language barriers to communications may arise if a pilot does not meet ELP standards. A CFI should continually evaluate the pilot’s ELP during any flight evaluation or training that he or she conducts.
c. CFI Determination. A CFI conducting a flight review or IPC should not endorse the evaluation as satisfactorily completed if he or she determines that the pilot under review has not demonstrated ELP. When a pilot has not accomplished a flight review satisfactorily, the evaluating instructor should endorse the pilot’s logbook to indicate only the training received (as is the case with any unsuccessful flight review). There is no provision in the regulation for the failure of a flight review; therefore, there should be no logbook endorsement reflecting a failure.
In the event the flight review is not successful due to the CFI’s doubt of ELP, the CFI should
Par 1-6 Page 3 provide a logbook entry for training received, advise the pilot of the CFI’s finding, and notify his or her local Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) for further action.
d. FSDO Evaluation. The FAA does not expect a CFI to be responsible for a conclusive evaluation of an airman’s ELP. If a CFI questions the ELP of an airman under evaluation, then the local FSDO should be notified to make the determination.
1-7. PERSONAL CURRENCY PROGRAM.
a. Currency Criteria. Pilots should design a currency program tailored to their individual operating environments and needs. In some cases, pilots may integrate currency criteria with normal operations to reduce the need for separate currency flights. For example, pilots could incorporate additional takeoffs and landings or specialized takeoffs and landings such as short or soft field into a previously-scheduled flight. In most cases, pilots should consider the need for currency beyond that specified by the 14 CFR.
b. FAA Safety Team (FAASTeam). The FAA strongly encourages pilots to participate in the FAASTeam’s Pilot Proficiency Program (WINGS), which includes numerous forms of training media such as online programs and recommended topics for pilots to review with CFIs.
Additionally, the FAASTeam conducts safety seminars, which are open to the public.
c. Aviation Publications and Commercially Developed Materials. Pilots should also explore the wide range of publications and other commercially developed materials available for use in personal currency programs. To ensure staying up to date in regulatory changes and flying techniques, the FAA also encourages pilots to read aviation periodicals on a regular basis.
d. Additional Sources for Developing a Personal Currency Program. For assistance in developing a personal currency program, pilots may consult a wide variety of sources. These sources include:
• Pilot examiners,
• Pilot schools,
• Individual CFIs,
• FAASTeam Program Managers, and
• FAASTeam representatives.
NOTE: For information on local sources, pilots should contact their FAASTeam Program Manager at the nearest FAA FSDO. You can find your local FAASTeam Program Manager in the FAASTeam Online Directory at https://faasafety.gov/FAASTApp/directory/default.aspx. You can find your local FSDO online at http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/.
You can find FAASTeam Activities, Courses, Seminars & Webinars, plus other free FAA resources online at http://www.faasafety.gov/.
Par 1-8 Page 4
1-8. AIRMAN CERTIFICATE AND/OR RATING APPLICATION.
a. Revised Airman Application Form. The FAA frequently updates FAA Form 8710-1, Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application, to meet the needs of the airmen certification process and the aviation community. CFIs, pilots, and stakeholders should note that the latest Form 8710-1 contains enhancements that include a new field for a flight review and another for IPC.
b. Flight Review and IPC. When a pilot satisfactorily completes a flight review or IPC, the applicant should provide, and the evaluating CFI should submit, a completed Form 8710-1 to the Airmen Certification Branch (AFS-760). The FAA does not require Form 8710-1 for a pilot’s flight review or IPC; however, the FAA strongly encourages all applicants and CFIs to follow this recommendation. An airman certificate application updates a pilot’s FAA record. Pilots should ensure that their data is current because up-to-date records benefit everyone. For example, a pilot’s total flight time and aeronautical experience determines insurance premiums. If a pilot loses his or her logbook, an FAA record is on file and available. Nevertheless, submitting Form 8710-1 for a flight review or IPC is optional.
c. Preferred Method. The preferred method for submitting an Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application is through the Integrated Airman Certification and Rating Application (IACRA) system. The FAA did not have the IACRA system updated at the time of this publication; but the latest Form 8710-1 iteration will soon be available in IACRA. IACRA is the web-based certification/rating application that guides the user through the FAA’s airman application process. IACRA validates data. It also uses electronic signatures to protect the information’s integrity and eliminates paper forms.
• You can find the IACRA homepage at https://iacra.faa.gov/iacra/.
• You can find FAA Form 8710-1 online at http://www.faa.gov/forms/.
Par 2-1 Page 5 CHAPTER 2. REDUCING GENERAL AVIATION ACCIDENTS
2-1. GENERAL AVIATION (GA) ACCIDENTS. The General Aviation Joint Steering Committee (GAJSC) is the primary vehicle for government-industry cooperation, communication, and coordination on GA accident reduction. GAJSC findings reveal common pilot errors; while GAJSC recommendations provide mitigation strategies to reduce GA fatalities. Pilots and CFIs should apply GAJSC findings and recommendations to their action plans as they pertain to personal currency programs, pilot proficiency training, flight reviews, and instrument proficiency checks (IPC). For these reasons, the FAA encourages pilots and CFIs to keep informed with GAJSC findings and recommendations. You can find additional information about the GAJSC online at the following web address: http://www.gajsc.org/.
a. Loss of Control (LOC). The GAJSC cites LOC as one of the six most critical and common causes of GA accidents. Further, LOC was the number one cause of GA fatalities from 2001 through 2010. LOC refers to aircraft accidents that result from situations in which a pilot should have maintained (or should have regained) aircraft control, but failed to do so. The FAA reminds pilots and CFIs to regularly evaluate (and elevate) skills to avoid, recognize, and recover from emergencies such as LOC.
NOTE: Future updates to this AC may address other causes of GA accidents, including aeronautical decision-making (ADM), weather (WX), controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), runway incursions, and system failure.
b. Pilot Proficiency. Studies have shown that LOC usually occurs when pilots lack proficiency. Conditions exceeding personal skill limitations can present themselves at any time.
In this event, the pilot should be able to exercise skills at a proficiency level he or she may not have maintained or attained since initial training. This makes personal currency programs and proficiency training important. Personal currency programs serve to develop and maintain pilot proficiency by promoting attributes such as aeronautical knowledge, aeronautical skill, and ADM. These attributes collectively determine the degree of aeronautical ability a pilot possesses.
Pilot proficiency pays off because a highly proficient pilot increases the safety of flight by avoiding or managing an inflight emergency. The GAJSC recommends that pilots place emphasis focused on their specific proficiency needs by including training that may exceed regulatory minimum currency requirements.
c. Traffic Pattern Operations. One area where pilots have experienced LOC is while maneuvering in an airport traffic pattern. Pilots should adopt, and CFIs should promote, training programs designed to reduce the risk of GA accidents in traffic pattern operations. CFIs should provide training to mitigate three potential areas of risk involving maneuvering an airplane in an airport traffic pattern. The first area is the risk of a departure stall; the second area is the risk of LOC if attempting to return to the field after an engine failure on takeoff; and the third area is the risk of LOC on the base to final turn. CFIs should emphasize training that ensures that pilots of small single-engine aircraft depart in coordinated flight at the best-rate-of-climb speed (VY) for normal takeoffs, and maintain this speed to the altitude necessary for a safe return to the airport in the event of an emergency. CFIs should train pilots of single-engine airplanes not to return to the field after an engine failure unless altitude and best glide requirements permit. Accordingly, CFIs should provide training that emphasizes the correct speeds at which light twin-piston
Par 2-1 Page 6 aircraft depart the runway. CFIs should emphasize that a departure at best-angle-of-climb speed (VX) is used for obstacle clearance and short field takeoff procedures. CFIs should emphasize the consequences of climbing out at speeds less or greater than what is required for a particular type of takeoff. CFIs should also teach pilots to reject an approach and initiate a go-around when the pilot cannot maintain a stabilized approach. The GAJSC recommends that pilots and CFIs emphasize stabilized approach and landing proficiency and conduct stabilized approaches as a standard practice. Flight reviews and IPCs should emphasize evaluating a pilot’s ADM, departure skills, and ability to establish and maintain a stabilized approach and landing, while applying effective crosswind techniques to avoid the risk of LOC when maneuvering in an airport traffic pattern. Effective scenario-based training emphasizing ADM, departures, and establishing and maintaining a stabilized approach to a landing reduces the risk of LOC in an airport traffic pattern.
d. Criteria for Stabilized Approaches Conducted in GA Airplanes. Under most circumstances, the airplane must be stabilized by 1,000 feet above airport elevation in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) and by 500 feet above airport elevation during straight-in approaches in visual meteorological conditions (VMC). Pilots must monitor at least seven major elements that define a stabilized approach in GA airplane. The FAA considers an approach to touchdown stabilized when the airplane meets all of the following criteria, with only minor deviations.
(1) Glide Path. The airplane is on the correct flight path. Typically, the glide path is 3 degrees to the runway touchdown zone (TDZ) (obstructions permitting).
(2) Heading. The airplane is tracking the extended centerline to the runway with only minor heading/pitch changes necessary to correct for wind or turbulence to maintain alignment.
Bank angle should not exceed 15 degrees on final.
(3) Airspeed. The airplane maintains a constant airspeed within +10 knots indicate air speed (KIAS)/-5 KIAS of the recommended landing speed specified in the pilot’s operating handbook (POH) or on approved placards/markings.
(4) Configuration. The airplane is in the correct landing configuration with flaps as required, landing gear extended, and the airplane is in trim.
(5) Rate of Descent. Descent rate is a constant and no greater than 500 feet per minute (fpm). If a descent greater than 500 fpm is required due to approach considerations, it must be reduced prior to 300 feet above ground level (AGL) and well before the landing flare and touchdown phase.
(6) Power Setting. Power setting is appropriate for the airplane configuration and is not below the minimum power for approach as defined by the POH.
(7) Checklists/Briefings. All briefings and checklists (except the landing checklist) completed prior to initiating the approach.
Par 2-1 Page 7 NOTE: For a typical GA piston airplane in a traffic pattern, if the approach becomes unstabilized below 300 feet AGL, the pilot should initiate an immediate go-around.
e. Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC). Another area where pilots have experienced LOC is while maneuvering in IMC. Vertigo or spatial disorientation has been a significant factor in many aircraft accidents. The common result when a non-instrument rated pilot inadvertently continues flight into IMC is spatial disorientation of the pilot and LOC. Pilots who are instrument rated, but not instrument proficient, are also susceptible. Recovery from LOC in IMC can be nearly impossible without skills and competency. Additionally, instrument rated pilots maneuvering in IMC who fail to prioritize pilot workload properly and use crew resource management (CRM) or single-pilot resource management (SRM) may become inattentive or distracted and lose situational awareness, which too often can lead to LOC. The GAJSC has found that pilots and CFIs need to emphasize effective preflight planning and pilot proficiency to reduce the risk of LOC in IMC.
NOTE: LOC is not limited to the examples provided above. Other examples of areas where pilots have experienced LOC include environmentally induced aircraft upsets, system malfunction/failure-induced upsets, and exceeding personal skills.
2-2. MANUAL FLIGHT AFTER AUTOMATION FAILURE. Pilots and aircraft owners have taken advantage of modern avionics and flight automation equipment. Glass cockpits are available for virtually every new aircraft, as well as for many legacy and experimental aircraft.
Global Positioning Systems (GPS), positioning on a moving map, real time weather, terrain/traffic awareness, and modern autopilots have made a significant presence to the GA fleet. Pilots also employ handheld equipment not installed in the aircraft much more frequently than in the past. This equipment can make flight operations safer and help avoid LOC situations;
however, pilots should be proficient in all automation tools and know the system limitations. The FAA reminds CFIs conducting flight reviews and IPCs to ensure that a pilot under evaluation is proficient with the automated system and knows what to do if it fails.
a. Pilot Knowledge. Pilots should learn their aircraft’s systems, limits, and recommended procedures before a pilot can fly the aircraft safely. This is especially important for technically advanced aircraft (TAA) equipped with automated avionics described above or flight automation systems (e.g., flight management system (FMS) or coupled autopilot). The FAA strongly recommends that a pilot receive a thorough evaluation from a qualified instructor with experience in the automation equipped in the specific aircraft make and model flown.
b. Reliance on Automation. Overreliance on automation or automated flight systems has resulted in accidents. A 2010 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) safety study concluded that "glass cockpit" aircraft (TAA) experience a lower total accident rate, but a higher fatal accident rate, than the same type of aircraft equipped with conventional analog instrumentation. (See http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1001.pdf to view this publication online.) The NTSB study also reported, “Even before electronic displays became common, anecdotal reports from flight crews, as well as findings from accidents and research, revealed potential problems if pilots relied too heavily on automated systems or if they
Par 2-2 Page 8 misunderstood automated system behavior” (page 6). Automation can lull some pilots into complacency. Furthermore, automation bias presented a new breed of accident by creating the potential to erode a complacent pilot’s manual flight skills. Automation bias refers to the willingness of the pilot to trust and utilize automated systems while feeling that the automation is more capable than the pilot. This perception may result in passive automation management (commonly referred to as “set and go”). Eroded skills can degrade the pilot’s ability to recognize potential system issues and avoid or recover from LOC. The FAA strongly recommends that pilots who fly aircraft with automated flight systems manually control the aircraft at times to maintain manual flying skills. Pilots should actively manage automation by making use of all systems, cross-referencing data provided by the various systems—and while monitoring, and managing flight progress such as waypoints or checkpoints. Active automation management ensures enhanced situational awareness while providing the opportunity for quick identification of automation failure.
c. Proficiency in Manual Aircraft Control. Pilots should be proficient in manual aircraft control and should be able to operate the aircraft without the use of the aircraft’s automation.
Advanced avionics and flight automation offer many levels of automation. Pilots need to understand that no one level of automation is appropriate for all flight situations. If a flight automation system failure occurs, in whole or in part, the pilot should possess the knowledge to address the situation. This may include isolating the defective components and/or manually flying the aircraft. In any event, manual flight may be necessary to ensure positive control of the aircraft while the pilot identifies problems and determines an appropriate course of action. All flight reviews conducted in aircraft equipped with automation should include training in manual aircraft control. In this case, the CFI should simulate failures of critical components of automation through a safe and practical means. The instructor should never actually render an automated system inoperative, such as turning off switches or disengaging circuit breakers. For example, a CFI can simulate an automation failure simply by disengaging an integrated autopilot on an approach. The FAA strongly recommends that pilots and CFIs strive for proficiency in manual aircraft control to mitigate the risk of loss of aircraft control.
2-3. CFI RESPONSIBILITY AND SAFETY CULTURE. The only contact that many pilots may have with an aviation authority is through his or her instructor. CFIs are professionals that play a vital role in ensuring aviation safety. CFIs are the cornerstone of aviation safety. They mentor pilot safety practices as they mitigate aviation accidents by providing pilot flight training and conducting pilot evaluations. In other words, CFIs bear a responsibility to produce the safest pilots possible.
a. Mentoring Competency. A CFI’s actions influence the GA safety culture. The FAA expects all CFIs to adhere to the highest training standards and safety practices. CFIs should be fully qualified in every role they perform. For example, and as discussed further in paragraph 4-2e, the CFI should be qualified in each specific aircraft make and model in which they provide instruction. For this reason, CFIs should consider their personal qualifications prior to accepting any instructional or pilot evaluation role. This is an important consideration for conducting a flight review, an IPC, or conducting specialized flight training, such as transition training in a specific TAA. If a CFI is not proficient in an aircraft or specialized field of instruction, the CFI should always be honest and decline to provide flight training or a pilot evaluation in an unfamiliar aircraft or role. As an alternative, the CFI should assist the pilot in
Par 2-3 Page 9 (and 10) finding an experienced CFI that is qualified to fill the CFI role in the specialized aircraft or field of interest.
b. FAA/Industry Safety Recommendations. CFIs are required to be knowledgeable and up-to-date on issues critical to aviation safety. Government/industry safety recommendations help CFIs meet this responsibility. GAJSC findings and recommendations, NTSB safety reports, and the Air Safety Institute’s “Nall Report” all provide critical safety information. CFIs should incorporate this information in the training they provide. Utilizing and disseminating this critical information, when promoting personal currency programs, providing effective flight reviews, and conducting IPCs, helps to build a positive safety culture that can reduce GA accidents.